User talk:Pirokiazuma

June 2013
Hello, I'm Faizan. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Divergence of the sum of the reciprocals of the primes because it did not appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Fai zan  11:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Divergence of the sum of the reciprocals of the primes. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Divergence of the sum of the reciprocals of the primes, you may be blocked from editing. Your edits have been automatically marked as vandalism and have been automatically reverted. The following is the log entry regarding this vandalism: Divergence of the sum of the reciprocals of the primes was changed by Pirokiazuma (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.860294 on 2013-06-22T07:16:28+00:00. Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 07:16, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Please, comment at talk: Divergence of the sum of the reciprocals of the primes . Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px|alt=Stop icon]] This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Divergence of the sum of the reciprocals of the primes, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.  So far, exactly two of your article-space edits has been other than vandalism, and one of those was an unsourced improvement to an equation.  I don't know whether the improved equation is correct, but I did revert it.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 08:00, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I’m going to raise your question on the administrators’ noticeboard. Your wiki career is likely approaching its logical end. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Never mind, although I'm involved with this "editor", as having reverted one edit which was not obvious vandalism (although it may have been subtle vandalism), ...
 * [[Image:Stop x nuvola.svg|40px|left|alt=Stop icon]] You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for vandalism.  If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: . However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 12:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not certain that the edits were intended to damage Wikipedia, only that they clearly did damage Wikipedia. I may not be competent to distinguish vandalism from severe and total incompetence.  But the result should be the same, an indefinite block until the editor expresses willingness and indicates ability to make constructive edits.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 13:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC)